Appeal No. 2007-0048 Page 7
Application No. 10/234,608
According to the Examiner, Gibson “disclose[s] an insulated panel 2 of
aerogel material” (Answer, p. 3). Gibson discloses a method of making a panel
of microporous thermal insulation from an aerogel at column 2, line 55-65. Given
Gibson’s disclosure, the Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to modify the door of Lowry by using an aerogel as
the thermal insulation material within the void of Lowry’s slat assembly. We
agree. One of ordinary skill in the art having Lowry in hand would look to any
conventional thermally insulative material as a candidate material to fill the void
of the slat assembly with a reasonable expectation that any thermally insulative
material selected for filling the void would give the slat assembly a thermal
insulation performance corresponding to the material selected. Gibson discloses
one such conventional thermal insulative material, aerogel. Therefore, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that selecting Gibson’s
aerogel to fill the void within the slat assembly of Lowry would provide the Lowry
assembly with a thermal insulation performance corresponding to the
incorporated aerogel.
In our view, the Examiner’s findings are sufficient to support a prima facie
conclusion of obviousness. Consequently, the burden shifts to Appellant to rebut
the Examiner’s showing of obviousness. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16
USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc).
Appellant’s rebuttal consists of arguments challenging the applicability of
Gibson as a secondary reference to support a showing that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use aerogel within the Lowry slat
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013